# 2 Clover's article suggests that society has been educated since the early 50's to over-consume, which creates greater demand, and drives up corporate profits. This practice has led to massive ecological imbalancesacross the world as more resources are created and consumed for just 10% of the world's population. What steps do you feel are necessary to re-educate the consumer to reduce further imbalances? There have been many interesting threads on this question. Most can be divided in four streams: Education; A discussion was started around the idea of beginning education on global environmental sustainability as early as elementary school. There were comments made on the use of theatre and role modeling (preparing a salad as a class) which helped to illustrate the message of healthy choices and use of local produce. This message was seen as an influence on the parents who began recycling programs because of the influence of their school age children. It was also pointed out that hoping the next generation would grow up to save the planet was not enough. More needed to be done to reach adults. There are social groups like the People’s Grocery (see link below) who are trying to educate adults in making healthy food choices. There was a suggestion that a large scale social movement needs to happen before any government will support change. Currently education programs seemed to be geared towards creating more workers to support corporations. There was a strong argument for a liberal arts education. The need for more adults who can think critically and problem solve was stressed. Corporate responsibility Several threads discussed the role large multinational corporations have in creating ecological imbalances. There is a general sense that advertising is geared toward making us consume more than we need. If a corporation does well but does not grow it is seen as failing. This means companies must have sustained growth in order to be seen as successful. To feed this growth corporations are taking more and more resources and turning them into products. Many people would like to see multinational companies give back to the communities they take from. Using their profits to create schools and health center was seen as contributing to a community but was also viewed as a hollow PR campaign that many companies only did if they were pressured into it. Government was often viewed as supporting business over environment. Lifestyle; Many people called for a need to change our lifestyles. It was agreed that we must try to find ways to reduce our consumption. It was also pointed out that people needed to see the value in doing so. There is a general sense that local programs such as farmers markets and community gardens are good. As was programs that allowed us to share resources like cars and bikes. One interesting thread on this topic involved raising the price of energy products to force us to conserve. This action has been taken in other countries and has been successful in getting people to use less. It was pointed out that here the public outcry over higher prices usually forces governments to subsidize prices. There was also a concern that this move would cause hardship to many low income families. Price was also considered to be a factor in over consumption. Affordability was seen as a measure of a successful lifestyle and when people can afford something new they will not bother fixing something old. Recycling was brought up numerous times and there is a sense that campaigns to get people to recycle have been very successful. Guilt; Apparently no one who has followed the threads can use the drive through at Timmies or eat anything but fair trade chocolate. J Personal Reflection; There were some great attempts to answer this problem but I realize now we should have focused more on the government’s role in the environment. In developed countries there is a great need to create greener cities. For the first time in history there are more people living in urban centers rather than in rural areas, however, we are still building cities the same old way. Calgary for example has been allowed to spread to unrealistic proportions. Each month more of the prairie is given up to new suburbs. Going without a car (has some people pointed out) is seen as an oddity. Municipal governments must learn to regulate outward growth and conserve resources. There was also no mention of why governments have jumped on the recycle bandwagon while showing little support to other environmental programs. Waste disposal is a large budget item for local governments. The cost of a new landfill area is in the millions and many cities (like Edmonton and Calgary in Alberta) are quickly running out of places to put our garbage. Two of Calgary’s landfills are now surrounded by new suburbs. Living beside a dump is not an attractive selling feature. Living beside an environmentally friendly recycling plant is. We also need to encourage Federal governments to be less influenced by the will of big business. In this case we can actually take a page from the oilsands. When big business threatens to go somewhere else we need a government with enough sense to realize someone else will gladly step in to fill the void. There will be only short term pain, more jobs will be created and the government can call the shots for the benefit of the citizens not the CEOs.
There have been many interesting threads on this question. Most can be divided in four streams:
Education;
A discussion was started around the idea of beginning education on global environmental sustainability as early as elementary school. There were comments made on the use of theatre and role modeling (preparing a salad as a class) which helped to illustrate the message of healthy choices and use of local produce. This message was seen as an influence on the parents who began recycling programs because of the influence of their school age children.
It was also pointed out that hoping the next generation would grow up to save the planet was not enough. More needed to be done to reach adults. There are social groups like the People’s Grocery (see link below) who are trying to educate adults in making healthy food choices. There was a suggestion that a large scale social movement needs to happen before any government will support change. Currently education programs seemed to be geared towards creating more workers to support corporations. There was a strong argument for a liberal arts education. The need for more adults who can think critically and problem solve was stressed.
Corporate responsibility
Several threads discussed the role large multinational corporations have in creating ecological imbalances. There is a general sense that advertising is geared toward making us consume more than we need. If a corporation does well but does not grow it is seen as failing. This means companies must have sustained growth in order to be seen as successful. To feed this growth corporations are taking more and more resources and turning them into products.
Many people would like to see multinational companies give back to the communities they take from. Using their profits to create schools and health center was seen as contributing to a community but was also viewed as a hollow PR campaign that many companies only did if they were pressured into it.
Government was often viewed as supporting business over environment.
Lifestyle;
Many people called for a need to change our lifestyles. It was agreed that we must try to find ways to reduce our consumption. It was also pointed out that people needed to see the value in doing so. There is a general sense that local programs such as farmers markets and community gardens are good. As was programs that allowed us to share resources like cars and bikes.
One interesting thread on this topic involved raising the price of energy products to force us to conserve. This action has been taken in other countries and has been successful in getting people to use less. It was pointed out that here the public outcry over higher prices usually forces governments to subsidize prices. There was also a concern that this move would cause hardship to many low income families.
Price was also considered to be a factor in over consumption. Affordability was seen as a measure of a successful lifestyle and when people can afford something new they will not bother fixing something old.
Recycling was brought up numerous times and there is a sense that campaigns to get people to recycle have been very successful.
Guilt;
Apparently no one who has followed the threads can use the drive through at Timmies or eat anything but fair trade chocolate. J
Personal Reflection;
There were some great attempts to answer this problem but I realize now we should have focused more on the government’s role in the environment. In developed countries there is a great need to create greener cities. For the first time in history there are more people living in urban centers rather than in rural areas, however, we are still building cities the same old way. Calgary for example has been allowed to spread to unrealistic proportions. Each month more of the prairie is given up to new suburbs. Going without a car (has some people pointed out) is seen as an oddity. Municipal governments must learn to regulate outward growth and conserve resources.
There was also no mention of why governments have jumped on the recycle bandwagon while showing little support to other environmental programs. Waste disposal is a large budget item for local governments. The cost of a new landfill area is in the millions and many cities (like Edmonton and Calgary in Alberta) are quickly running out of places to put our garbage. Two of Calgary’s landfills are now surrounded by new suburbs. Living beside a dump is not an attractive selling feature. Living beside an environmentally friendly recycling plant is.
We also need to encourage Federal governments to be less influenced by the will of big business. In this case we can actually take a page from the oilsands. When big business threatens to go somewhere else we need a government with enough sense to realize someone else will gladly step in to fill the void. There will be only short term pain, more jobs will be created and the government can call the shots for the benefit of the citizens not the CEOs.